On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 04:06:57 +0800, KennyTM~ wrote:
> My point is that if you just colorize « and » an average user seeing the
> foreign template code will not understand that the « is not actually a
> chevron but a !(. That will be a confusion.
But they will only see the chevrons if they are using Andrei's personal
editor and setup. I never use Emacs so I'll never see the chevrons.
--
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
skype: derek.j.parnell

KennyTM~ wrote:
> It's OK if the replacement is implemented as a *non-default option*.
> Just like visual whitespace (I'm surprised no one challenges me with
> this). That means if a programmer really hates !(...) they can switch it
> on and change all of them into «...». With this the programmer *knows*
> what they're doing and confusion can be minimized.
I understand. You basically overestimate at the same time my proficiency
with emacs and the extent of my influence. Anyhow, should an emacs
module with various embellishments be offered anywhere near
"officially", it will not have features that are experimental or unusual
turned on by default.
Andrei

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 01:18:35 +0800,
KennyTM~ wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
> > KennyTM~ wrote:
> >> But will be compiler accept T«x» if I directly feed it into the compiler?
> >
> > No.
> >
> >> It's no good if what you see cannot be what you type.
> >
> > The compiler doesn't accept colored text either, but that doesn't impair
> > the usefulness of an editor that displays it that way.
>
> Because you can't type color, but you can type « and ».
You can type runes either. Let's use Fehu for function types and literals!

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> KennyTM~ wrote:
>> It's OK if the replacement is implemented as a *non-default option*.
>> Just like visual whitespace (I'm surprised no one challenges me with
>> this). That means if a programmer really hates !(...) they can switch
>> it on and change all of them into «...». With this the programmer
>> *knows* what they're doing and confusion can be minimized.
>
> I understand. You basically overestimate at the same time my proficiency
> with emacs and the extent of my influence. Anyhow, should an emacs
> module with various embellishments be offered anywhere near
> "officially", it will not have features that are experimental or unusual
> turned on by default.
>
> Andrei
I see.

Sergey Gromov wrote:
> Mon, 13 Oct 2008 01:18:35 +0800,
> KennyTM~ wrote:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>> KennyTM~ wrote:
>>>> But will be compiler accept T«x» if I directly feed it into the compiler?
>>> No.
>>>
>>>> It's no good if what you see cannot be what you type.
>>> The compiler doesn't accept colored text either, but that doesn't impair
>>> the usefulness of an editor that displays it that way.
>> Because you can't type color, but you can type « and ».
>
> You can type runes either. Let's use Fehu for function types and literals!
I wonder if there's an emacs module for it... :p

KennyTM~ wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> KennyTM~ wrote:
>>> It's OK if the replacement is implemented as a *non-default option*.
>>> Just like visual whitespace (I'm surprised no one challenges me with
>>> this). That means if a programmer really hates !(...) they can switch
>>> it on and change all of them into «...». With this the programmer
>>> *knows* what they're doing and confusion can be minimized.
>>
>> I understand. You basically overestimate at the same time my
>> proficiency with emacs and the extent of my influence. Anyhow, should
>> an emacs module with various embellishments be offered anywhere near
>> "officially", it will not have features that are experimental or
>> unusual turned on by default.
>>
>> Andrei
>
> I see.
Now everyone can literally see (attached). I added Unicode display for a
couple more tokens. I will experiment with that look and feel for a
while and see how it fares. I just told Walter even his code looks good
now :o).
Andrei

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 2:59 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
<SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:
> Now everyone can literally see (attached). I added Unicode display for a
> couple more tokens. I will experiment with that look and feel for a while
> and see how it fares. I just told Walter even his code looks good now :o).
That won't happen until he stops mixing tabs and spaces!

Walter Bright wrote:
> We seem to have reached a dead end on finding a significantly better
> alternative than foo!(bar).
>
> All is not lost, though. Andrei is working on an emacs module that will
> parse D code and replace foo!(bar) with foo«bar» for display only when
> the editor is in D mode, the underlying text will still be foo!(bar).
> (This doesn't affect D at all, only its display in Emacs.)
>
> Also, we're going to try using ! for single argument syntax, as in:
>
> foo!bar is same as foo!(bar)
> foo!10 is same as foo!(10)
>
> etc. 0 arguments or more than 1 argument or arguments that are more than
> one token long will still require !( ). We'll see how that works. I
> think it looks rather nice.
Is it just me or is foo!bar uglier than foo!(bar)? Maybe I'm just used
to the tried and true syntax.